A bill by Oregon state Sen. Chip Shields would require...

was needed, said Shields, a Democrat. Meanwhile, “given the absence of any federal entity with primary jurisdiction to evaluate and regulate health and safety effects of cellular telephones on humans … the state of Oregon may lawfully exercise its health and safety and police powers to prohibit cellular telephones in this state unless the cellular telephones and their packaging contain a visible, written label advising consumers of possible risks and steps a consumer can take to reduce the risk of radio-frequency radiation exposure,” the bill said. The FCC considered non-thermal effects when it established the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) requirements that apply to every wireless device sold in the U.S., said John Walls, a vice president with CTIA. The International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)’s recent research reconfirmed the SAR limits that form the basis of the FCC’s requirements, he said. The scientific literature has provided no evidence of any adverse effects when radiation is below the basic restrictions and “does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields,” the ICNIRP said. “With regard to non-thermal interactions, it is in principle impossible to disprove their possible existence but the plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low.” And it said “the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure.”